The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[explanade]

If it's simple snapshots of friends and posting to social media, a good phone camera might be good.

Obviously dedicated cameras will get you better picture quality but if she's mainly posting them online, the quality doesn't have to be so high and it's a lot easier posting them online from a phone than any camera, even those which have Wifi built in.

Apple just announce iPhone 12, all with gorgeous OLED displays. Maybe she will end up mostly viewing the photos she takes on the phone screen.

There are several models all with at least two lenses which fit in the price range you cited.

They will all do things like Night Mode, which will take better night and low-light photos than most cameras which would require flash or long shutter speeds and tripods.

Or you could get last year's iPhone 11 starting at $599.

Now if she is more serious about photography, with interest in using different types of lenses and willing to put in time to learn and to carry around a big camera (bigger and heavier than any phone) and gear like lenses and tripods and such, then research dedicated cameras.

[51notout]

Thank you all for the great responses.

I’m picking her up from uni tomorrow for the weekend. I’ll ask her for some more info about her interest and intentions.

I did mention the latest iPhone as a possibility when she first mentioned a camera. Wasn’t interested in that.

I looked at the links provided are all are informative.

Thanks

[folivier]

The best camera is the one with you. Self explanatory.
But one problem with phones and smaller cameras is only having a screen and no viewfinder. When outside in the sun and glare it is almost impossible to see the screen to compose your photo. That's where a camera with a viewfinder is worth the money.

[doneat54]

A picture of our lakefront farm in NH taken with the drone today....

[doneat54]

Another one, from inside the barn. Loved the color contrasts and framing.

[Major Tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronstar Going to play around with flat lay / product photography this winter. Just getting started. I'm going to build a lot of small woodworking projects (boxes) and I want to take some nice photos of them.

Yes, a very nice box indeed Ronstar!

Quote:

Originally Posted by folivier Nice box. The trick with products is to eliminate all shadows. Best done with multiple lights.

As far as product photography goes, if you're shooting for a client, I suppose it depends what the client wants. My personal preference with this type of photography is not to eliminate all shadows. Shadows give a sense of depth. My preference is to attempt to create a smooth transition from light to dark areas, and usually not to allow the shadows to get too dark, so as not to lose detail. If you look, this is what Ronstar did.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by doneat54 A picture of our lakefront farm in NH taken with the drone today....

Where's the lake?

Pano might look good.

[street]

Quote:

Originally Posted by doneat54 A picture of our lakefront farm in NH taken with the drone today....

Very nice place/picture.

[doneat54]

Quote:

Originally Posted by explanade Where's the lake? Pano might look good.

Harvey Lake, Northwood, NH

[explanade]

NE fall colors!

[Dave J]

A American White Pelican I photographed yesterday.

DRJL1275-Edit-3 Pelican in flight (DeNoise) by David Johnson, on Flickr

[Ronstar]

Tucking a leg in to keep warm.

[street]

Beautiful photography and great captions.

[easysurfer]

Is there any good software that compresses RAW files to save space and also not lose any quality? Common programs like WinZip don't really save much space.

Only recently, I've been shooting in RAW at concerts which comes in handy to post process tricky lighting situations. But the drawback is the large file sizes.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by easysurfer Is there any good software that compresses RAW files to save space and also not lose any quality? Common programs like WinZip don't really save much space. Only recently, I've been shooting in RAW at concerts which comes in handy to post process tricky lighting situations. But the drawback is the large file sizes.

This is a question that comes up quite often (not here but on other forums). The answer is , no. The general consensus is that as cheap as storage space is, the lower quality is not justified.

In fact, I seem to recall a week or so ago a 14TB hard drive for a hundred bucks or so. I would take me several lifetimes to fill that up with RAW files.

[easysurfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd This is a question that comes up quite often (not here but on other forums). The answer is , no. The general consensus is that as cheap as storage space is, the lower quality is not justified. In fact, I seem to recall a week or so ago a 14TB hard drive for a hundred bucks or so. I would take me several lifetimes to fill that up with RAW files.

Thanks. At least now I know not to wear myself out searching for a good RAW compressing program.

[folivier]

Most compression algorithms are lossy, meaning you lose a few pixels each time you compress/uncompress. That is one of the values of Raw files, plus it is similar to a film negative. All of the data is still there so you can create a B&W, etc. image and still preserve the Raw image. I agree HDDs are very cheap.

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by folivier Most compression algorithms are lossy, meaning you lose a few pixels each time you compress/uncompress. That is one of the values of Raw files, plus it is similar to a film negative. All of the data is still there so you can create a B&W, etc. image and still preserve the Raw image. I agree HDDs are very cheap.

Another way to save space is to rigorously edit one's photographs. Once past those family photos that must be kept for posterity, my guess is that 80% of the photos I take aren't worth storing. The best tool I have for enhancing my reputation as a good photographer is the waste basket - physical or virtual.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Another way to save space is to rigorously edit one's photographs. Once past those family photos that must be kept for posterity, my guess is that 80% of the photos I take aren't worth storing. The best tool I have for enhancing my reputation as a good photographer is the waste basket - physical or virtual.

Yeah I don't always aggressively cull.

I keep photos thinking maybe some day I will play around with things like dedicated panorama stitching programs or maybe play around with them in Photoshop more.

I never get around to doing so.

But most of the time, I'm rating a subset of photos that I add to the library at 4 stars or higher and then I can filter them out and create just those that I rated for custom albums to san online.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd This is a question that comes up quite often (not here but on other forums). The answer is , no. The general consensus is that as cheap as storage space is, the lower quality is not justified. In fact, I seem to recall a week or so ago a 14TB hard drive for a hundred bucks or so. I would take me several lifetimes to fill that up with RAW files.

$100 would be a real great deal.

I just ordered one from BB for $190 and that is suppose to be a $110 discount.

Last year I paid $180 in a black Friday deal for a 10 GB.

I am probably going to have to upgrade to a RAID at some point, probably invest around $1500 so that I can consolidate my collection of 2 and 4 TB drives.